w w w . p r e s s t i t u t e s . o r g

The State of 'Rape Hoax Culture' in 2015

since Rolling Stone's hatchet job on the University of Virginia's supposed "rape culture" and Phi Kappa Psi's alleged "gang rape", reading at best—it has been said—like a really bad Lifetime movie, has been exposed as a complete fraud, so where do we stand? 

Well, first of all, Rolling Stone still has the offending screed posted on its website. 
They never actually retracted their story.  Neither the author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, nor any of the editors involved have been fired or even reprimanded.  For all we know, they've been promoted.  In fact, Sabrina Rubin was quoted in the New York Times, doubling down on her fraud and declaring “I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better. I am also not interested in diverting the conversation away from the point of the piece itself.”  This is the woman who asked no questions whatever of her own 'witness' not to mention the various victims of her hatchet job.  Nor, of course, has she offered an apology to anyone.  Essentially, she's still insisting that everyone believe her story, even after it's been completely disproven, and scolding anyone who dares to question it.  Lesson, to say the least, unlearned.

Once it came out that Jackie had created her tale, as well as the perpetator "Haven Monahan" completely out of thin air, the New York Times promptly dropped the story like the proverbial hot potato.  Nonetheless, columnist Nick Kristof, among others, insisted that the original story actually "underscores how thin our veneer of civilization sometimes is."  Kristof had nothing to say about mob rule, since he's part of the mob.  The NYT, meanwhile, immediately returned to its standard diet of highlighting individual rape cases, often on the front page.  Individual anecdotes are far more powerful (and even easier to 'massage') than dreary statistics, after all.

And despite later posting a vague and pro-forma "apology" of its own to "anyone who might have been affected" Rolling Stone hasn't even bothered to retract the story.  RS's "Apology/Non-Apology" took the form of "We're sorry if anyone was offended" as opposed to "We're sorry for what we did."  And the originator of the hoax, a putative "rape activist" named Jackie Coakley, has gone into hiding without ever taking a single step toward coming clean.  If you're in the slightest bit of doubt about the extent of her fabrications, simply read on.

It's become amply clear that facts are irrelevant when there's a narrative at stake.

UVA Cavalier Daily journalist Julia Horowitz, invoking the also-discredited "one in five" meme, declared that “to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake,” since Jackie’s fabrication points to a larger "truth".   New York Magazine's Kat Stoeffel (another hoax champion who has yet to apologize for attacking anyone and everyone who dared even ask the most obvious questions) is asking “To what end are we scrutinizing?”  And this from a journalist??

We're left in a truly weird place where it's the "women's rights activists" who are sad—angry, even!—that this gang rape never took place.  Many, such as Lucia Peters, are still insisting that the Rolling Stone piece was truthful and remains accurate: "It's Certainly Not a Hoax".  She insists Sabrina Rubin "tried a number of different avenues and ultimately wasn’t able to get in touch with the accused — and I’d guess that is because they didn’t want to speak to her."  Remember, it's been proven that the 'accused' (led by the fictional 'Haven Monahan') do not and did not ever exist.  Hey, maybe that's why she couldn't get in touch with them?

First and foremost, those observers who actually value truth owe a tremendous debt in this case primarily to Worth editor Richard Bradley and to a lesser degree, to Reason's Robby Soave.  Their tireless and courageous efforts
—in the face of vicious abuse from feminist agitators—were indispensable in cracking open the case and shedding light upon the hoax.

(For their efforts at uncovering the truth about this entire fiasco, they've been called 'rape apologists' and worse.  As one observer put it, Bradley's lesson (one he earned earlier in his career) is "
Beware of stories that play to your biases, especially those "too good to check".  Nonetheless he was pilloried in Jezebel and elsewhere, even after the actual facts of the case began to come out.  Zerlina Maxwell in the Washington Post wrote that we should "automatically" believe those claiming to be rape victims.  An editor later changed the headline to "generally" believe them, but the original text remains in the URL.)
 Rees Shapiro of the Washington Post followed along in the cleanup position and brought many of the facts to a wider audience.  Erik Wemple's Washington Post column, “Rolling Stone Whiffs on Reported Rape” provided added perspective.  But virtually all of the other MSM Presstitutes remained silent after their own hatchet jobs quoting the Rolling Stone story were proven false.

Cathy Young published an overview of the case where she bent over backward trying to be 'fair to both sides'. 

The amazing (and horrifying) 'takeaway' from the article is not just that Jackie Coakley made up her story, but that Sabrina Rubin made up virtually the entire article.  She relied heavily on a complete fabrication of obscene lyrics to an old campus 'drinking song' called "Rugby Road" as a prime illustration of the "poisonous atmosphere" against women at Virginia, using pullquotes from the fake lyrics to punctuate sections and episodes.  Apparently she found them on an internet site devoted to scatological humor, which ran contests to find out who could come up with the most offensive lyrics to existing songs.  These fake quotes made up a recurring theme in Rubin's screed.

The fictional rapists?  Sean Woods, who edited the Rolling Stone piece, told the Washington Post, "We did not talk to them. We could not reach them." However, he says they "verified their existence" by talking to Jackie's friends. "I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were."  Never mind that 'these guys' never even existed.

Slate's Allison Benedikt and Hanna Rosin explored why Erdely didn't include a response from Jackie's alleged attackers. Woods told them he's "done talking about the story" and added: "Through our extensive reporting and fact-checking, we found Jackie to be entirely credible and courageous and we are proud to have given her disturbing story the attention it deserves."

This was after the facts had already begun to come out.

But remember, the facts don't matter.  Only the narrative matters.

  “That’s what I wanted to address, that the degradation of women is intrinsically woven into the campus, and on every campus, and frankly in our culture,” she said. “If people are getting confused by that, I’m sorry to hear that. It’s another aspect of their denialism.”
Sabrina Rubin Erdely

This is the sound of someone who—
to put it kindly—is unrepentant.
It's the sound of someone disconnected from any notion of truth, justice, or fairness.

Rolling Stone's mock apology:

"Obviously, we regret any factual errors in any story," the statement read. "But Rolling Stone believes the essential point of Jackie's narrative is, in fact, true: a young woman suffered a horrific crime at a party, and a prestigious university reacted with indifference to her claim. This happens too often at college campuses all over America. Any mistakes we made were honest ones, trying hard to create a narrative and an investigation that would improve the prevention, investigation and prosecution of sexual violence. For that we would never apologize."


Mike Conrad - 12 January 2014

See also: Actual Sexual Assault Statistics and Rape Hoaxes: The Real Epidemic

 As an appendix to this post, I'm attaching a number of useful, informative, provocative, telling and/or humorous comments from elsewhere in the blogosphere.  Most are referenced.

"Now the narrative appears to be falling apart: her rapist wasn’t in the frat she says, the house held no party on the night of the assault, and other details are wobbly. Many people (not least UVA administrators) will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters, and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players."

"In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says."  --Zerlina Maxwell


The essence of this viewpoint, the credo if you will, is this:
"Better that a thousand innocent men should spend their lives in jail than a single woman's story be questioned."

Rubin Erdely was careful to seek out a publicly-supported college as the scene for her colossal hoax.  She was explicit about having done so:  "The Washington Post, in a Nov. 30 puff piece about her Rolling Stone article on the rape culture at UVA, gave background on how she ended up writing the story. Beginning back in June, according to the Post, she put out feelers to people at schools including Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Penn (her alma mater) before settling on UVA." 

Why UVA?  Well, as Post legal columnist Eugene Volokh has said, the University of Virginia is unable to seek legal redress as it is a public institution. Under the Supreme Court ruling New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, government agencies cannot sue for defamation.

Clever, huh?

"The first thing that strikes me about it, of course, is that Jackie is never identified. I don’t love that—it makes me uncomfortable to base an entire story on an unnamed source, and I can’t think of any other situation other than rape where a publication would allow that—but certainly one can see the rationale.

"Then we have three friends who talked to Jackie right after the rape, and apparently discouraged her from going to the hospital or the authorities because they might subsequently be banned from frat parties. Not one of them is named, or interviewed; so the three people who could allegedly corroborate the assault don’t.

"Then there’s the fact that Jackie apparently knew two of her rapists, but they are not named, nor does Rubin Erdley contact them, which is basically a cardinal rule of journalism: If someone in your story is accused of something, you’d better do your damnedest to give them a chance to respond. There’s no sign that Rubin Erdley did so. Why not?"


Rape has always been a crime. And criminal defendants have always had constitutional rights. The campus rape movement seeks to subvert those rights by circumventing the legal system.

Contrarian P|12.1.14 @ 9:33AM|#

I've been skeptical of the story ever since I heard about it. There just seemed to be too many fantastic details to believe. While I can believe you might find one advanced level sociopath in a large college fraternity chapter, there's no way I can believe that there are seven of them who apparently decided it would be fun to carry out their rape in a pitch dark room on broken glass. Then of course you have the girl's friends, who apparently are also a collection of unfeeling sociopaths who care less about her injuries than getting invited back to future parties, as if there aren't dozens of other fraternities that throw parties on the UVA campus. And why in the world would any girl want to go back to parties where she might be gang raped?

To be honest, the whole thing reads like something you'd find on a second rate erotic fiction website. What kills me is that it's being taken as the gospel truth by so many, despite the outrageous claims and absolute lack of a shred of evidence other than the story itself.

I was a fraternity man myself and proud of my time there. I learned a lot, had a great time, and met a great many friends. We had parties at least once a week. I never heard anyone even imply that rape, or even taking advantage of a girl who was obviously completely wasted, was okay. But I heard from people who never came to or got invited to our parties that they knew the kinds of things we did. The conception that seems to be out there of fraternity men is fiction.




Jeff R. says:
December 2, 2014 at 9:39 am

I too questioned whether this was a fraud, but for a somewhat different reason: a pre-meditated gang rape in a fraternity house where the victim knew one or more of the rapists doesn’t make any sense. Say you are rapist #3. Your fraternity brother comes to you and says “I’ve been flirting with this girl for a while now; I’m gonna bring her to our fraternity party tonight, lead her upstairs to my bedroom, and then we’ll gang rape her. You in?”

Even if you’re an unfeeling sociopath who thinks gang raping a stranger sounds like a fun way to spend a Saturday night, unless you are also functionally retarded, your first thought upon hearing this proposition is going to be “wait, isn’t she just going to go to the police afterward, tell them you raped her, and then we all get busted?” This whole story fails the plausibility test because there’s no conceivable way the perpetrators can realistically set out to do what they did thinking they can get away with it. Nobody commits a crime of this magnitude unless they think there’s a high probability they can get away with it, and there’s no reason the cartoonishly evil fraternity goons in this fable would think that.


Any focus on the university response is misplaced. I’m aware of the legal issues the university has, but the responsibility of investigating rape belongs to the police.


It's slightly scary to see that more than one contributor essentially takes the stand that the actual facts don't matter, it's the culture that we need to be worried about.  I'd say that the culture of facts not mattering is something to be worried about.  But they are worried about a culture which, absent supporting facts, is a bit shapeless.

Everyone who points out factual issues is required to issue a disclaimer that rape is a real problem, etc etc.  But none 'on the other side' is ever enjoined to recognize the incidence of false narratives. 

Separately, the WP link regarding sex offenses on campus shows UVA's overall number of occurrences to be extremely low.  But we may be skeptical of this too; the worst numbers are at notoriously liberal colleges and that may reflect their students' greater likelihood to report offenses, or their more elastic definition of offenses, or any of a number of other things.



Ms. Erdely did not return messages seeking comment Friday. In an interview this week, after questions were raised about the Nov. 19 article, she stood by her reporting. “I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better,” she said, and suggested that the debate about the veracity of the article stood only to divert attention from the real scandal — a crime that had not been sufficiently investigated.



Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring in a statement called Rolling Stone's apology "deeply troubling" since the magazine was not correcting the story. Herring has appointed an independent counsel to examine the allegations and how the school handled the matter.



"Defining Narrative Questioned"??  No, Rolling Stone has been caught out publishing a series of ridiculous, malicious lies and while issuing a trivial, pro forma apology to "anyone who might have been affected" still refuses even to correct its story.  Meanwhile Sabrina Rubin Erdely refuses to come clean and instead insists, according to the NYT, “I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better,” she said, and suggested that the debate about the veracity of the article stood only to divert attention from "the real scandal — a crime that had not been sufficiently investigated." 

We have people here who refuse anything resembling fair play, because they believe that the accused should have no rights so long as the accusation is one of rape. The holes in this story were obvious from the outset but no one dared question the 'narrative' because that narrative is sacred.  One day, but not soon, we'll look into how many men are in prison from coast to coast for crimes they never committed.

(npr comments)


 UVA Anger Focused on Rolling Stone After Rape Story Discredited
Mike Conrad

The Rolling Stone piece had hatchet job written all over it, and didn't pass the most rudimentary 'smell test' when considering the preposterous circumstances it relates. But Rolling Stone didn't bother with facts--they might get in the way of the 'narrative'.

Sure, Will Dana stuck a pro forma, one-sentence 'apology' to the end of his self-justifying screed, but didn't bother to offer to retract or even correct his story. And his hatchet woman Sabrina Rubin Erdeley has gone into hiding, issuing a statement saying “I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better.”

That's what passes for journalistic integrity these days. Facts are irrelevant, it's the narrative which matters, and one must always keep ones political goals in sight, never mind whose lives are ruined along the way.

Bloomberg Businessweek hardly helps matters by repeating the disproven canard that the CDC claims one in five women are rape victims. Not only is it inaccurate, it's irrelevant here since by all accounts women are considerably safer on campus than off. Meanwhile the original statement that 1 in 5 women college-age and older have been raped or sexually assaulted came from a 1985 article by Mary Koss for 'Ms Magazine'. This is a controversial report for two reasons: First, critics argued that the questions were ambiguous, and would permit any woman who’d regretted consensual sex afterwards to identify the intercourse as “rape.” Second, the 1-in-5 "statistic" did not match the number of actual reported rapes during that time. The 'stat' now derives from the following statement: “Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives." (National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998.) But the CDC's definition of 'completed or attempted rape' also included 'unwelcome sexual advances' and moreoever used Mary Koss as a source.

As always, the devil is in the details. For non-student females between the ages of 18 and 24, the actual rate of rape and sexual assault is 7.9 per 1,000. For student females, the number is 6.0.  That's per thousand, not per hundred.  See bjs(dot)gov "Violent Victimization of College Students"    (NCJ 206836) which offers the following inconvenient conclusions:

    Male college students were twice as likely to be victims of violence than female students (80 versus 43 per 1,000).
    White students had higher rates of violent victimization than blacks and higher rates than students of other races (65 versus 52 and 37 per 1,000 respectively).
    For females, nonstudents were over 1.5 times more likely than college students to be a victim of a violent crime (71 versus 43 per 1,000).



What no one seems to have discussed, though, is the missing women in Erdely’s reporting. Look at these three remarkable paragraphs from a story in the Washington Post:

    "Magazine writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely knew she wanted to write about sexual assaults at an elite university. What she didn’t know was which university.

   " So, for six weeks starting in June, Erdely interviewed students from across the country. She talked to people at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and her alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania. None of those schools felt quite right. But one did: the University of Virginia, a public school, Southern and genteel, brimming with what Erdely calls “super-smart kids” and steeped in the legacy of its founder, Thomas Jefferson.

    "What Erdely eventually found in Charlottesville shocked her, and it eventually shocked the nation."

“None of those schools felt quite right.” But what’s clear is that it wasn’t the schools that didn’t feel right. Here’s what the same story says Erdely was actually doing at the University of Virginia:

    Erdely was introduced to Jackie — her real name, unlike the pseudonyms given other figures in the article — by Emily Renda, a leader of the 'One Less' group and one of Jackie’s confidants.

She was rape shopping: going from campus to campus auditioning rape victims, contacting advocacy groups and asking for introductions. But the rapes she found at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Penn didn’t have the right narrative feel. They were just rapes, and she needed a cover-worthy rape. So she kept shopping until she found someone who would tell her a version of the story she had already decided to tell. She needed a big rape — something splashy, something with wild details and a frat house. She needed a rape that would go viral. You can’t do that with just some regular boring rape.



All funny enough, but remember womyn's hero Sabrina Rubin Erdeley has issued a statement through the NYT saying “I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better.” And she's been defended in the NYT, WP, Time Mag, etc etc. As far as she's concerned, she's done nothing wrong, and the Official Story in the MSM is that Jackie is the real victim in all of this. Sabrina Rubin Erdeley will do just fine sticking with her old job; such is the 'integrity' of American journalism, circa 2014.

"Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake."
-- Julia Horowitz, assistant managing editor at The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s student newspaper

(via www.politico.com)


Jeroboam (WP)
1:08 AM EST [Edited]
Sabrina Rubin Erdely seems to have a history with rape stories that are not exactly airtight. Before the "Jackie" story, she wrote about two other rape cases in articles for Rolling Stone. One from 2011 imploded when the (male) accuser's story was looked into:
A more recent one from late 2013 about the rape of a female sailor has details that have also raised questions:
All of these were written for Rolling Stone, which makes it awfully hard for them to claim that they were blind-sided by holes in a story written by this author.


 Grateful Mom
12/9/2014 10:44 pm


I have been following all of your blogs on the UVA story. You have my heartfelt gratitude for being brave enough to doubt the RS article at the outset. For me, the underlying issue is much more personal than question of unethical journalism practices. You see, I have a son in the Phi Kappa Psi chapter at UVA.

I cannot put into words how difficult the last few weeks have been for him, his friends and my family. Professors shamed the fraternity members in class, death threats were posted on Facebook, cinderblocks where thrown through windows while members were sleeping in the house, and grades (along with prospects for law school, graduate school, and medical school) have suffered.

These young men were abandoned by their classmates and by UVA. By suspending other fraternities and sororities, the number of those angry at Phi Psi only increased. Not once did anyone from the Board of Visitors or President Sullivan ask the students, faculty members and protestors to refrain from taking action. Instead, they quickly apologized to Jackie, accepting her story without ever saying, “let’s wait until the facts are in.”

Half of the current members of the Phi Psi were not in the fraternity in the fall of 2012. No one made that distinction on the grounds. It was guilt by association. After all, without any source checking, the RS told the world they all participated in raping girls as part of their initiation.

As far as I know, no one has issued any sort of apology directly to the fraternity or its members. Everyone was too afraid of being scorned to come to the defense of these men before you initiated the offensive for fact finding and source verification. I guess people are still too afraid of appearing unsympathetic to rape survivors to support these students and apologize.

The Rolling Stone, the University and it’s faculty, advocates for survivors, Jackie’s friends, most of the media and the public seem to think that it does not matter if there was an actual rape in this particular case or that it does not matter at which fraternity it may have taken place. Let me tell you, they are wrong. It does matter. It matters a great deal to the fine young men in Phi Psi and their families.

Thank you for advocating for the pursuit of a fair and unbiased story. I can’t help but tear up every time I think about how much worse this nightmare could have been if it had not been for you and the others that quickly questioned the story.

By the way, I wholeheartedly support the firing of every person at RS that had the opportunity and ethical duty to prevent the firestorm that was caused by their shoddy journalism.


12/7/2014 10:53 PM EST
Ya know, Rolling Stone isn't the only one who jumped the shark here.
These two recently appeared here at WaPo:
Terrence McCoy: The alleged rape at a University of Virginia frat house and the fraternity gang-rape culture
Richard Cohen: Alleged rape at U-Va. reveals a lack of real men


sdb says:
December 2, 2014 at 9:40 am

Perhaps a better parallel to this story is the alleged gang rape at Hofstra a few years ago. A student claimed that several guys lured her to their dorm for a “party”. She alleged that she was taken to the bathroom on that floor and gang-raped.

The four men accused of raping her were arrested and put in jail. While in jail, they were harassed by the guards and prisoners. They were dismissed from school and one guy was fired from his job. Until…

A fifth man came forward who had videoed the encounter on his cell phone showing that the group sex was consensual. The woman who made the accusations ran into her boyfriend following the romp in the bathroom and was embarrassed. She falsely claimed rape out of embarrassment.


Now imagine that one of the guys hadn’t videoed the encounter. Where would they be now? I’m not saying that most (or even many) accusers are lying about sex they regret, but it does happen.

The UVA story is quite sensational (like the story linked here a while back about the rape by the guys in the Christian college dorm room). It seems to me that some skepticism is warranted. This isn’t to say that the stories are false, but before publishing names and publicizing accusations it seems to me that media outlets have the burden to be quite sure the story is true.


Michael Guarino, I will also say that, if a member of Phi Psi had indeed worked as a lifeguard at the school athletic facility in the fall of 2012, everyone would know who he was by now. Some other lifeguard at the facility would know who he was, and/or some other amateur sleuth would have compared lists. This story is big news, and I’m sure it’s much bigger news on the UVA campus. By the same token, if Phi Psi had indeed held a party, a “date function,” on September 28, 2012, other female guests would have chimed in by now about their recollections of the party.


 Steve Sailer
11/25/2014 6:51 am

Perhaps this media furor about UVA has something to do with the murder of UVA coed Hannah Graham in September? With all the recent news stories of bad behavior against women by black men, such as Bill Cosby, Ray Rice, and the suspect in the Graham murder, there’s a real hunger right now for a tale of evil white men. That doesn’t mean this Rolling Stone story isn’t completely true; but, like you say, it sure complies with current prejudices far better than most of the recent stories of women being abused by men.

 Steve Sailer
11/27/2014 4:20 am

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but I’ve done some more thinking and here’s where the story falls apart: pitch darkness and broken glass on the floor. The glass table is smashed, but nobody turns on the light to see what happened or where the broken glass is? Instead, each man, having heard the glass table get smashed, still gets down on the floor covered with shards of broken glass, risking not only his hands and knees, but also pulling out an even more personal part of his anatomy, one that he only has one of.


What about the fact that they were called pledges (in Fall) yet pledging happens in spring at UVA...

“She was absolutely bursting to tell this story,” Erdely said. “I could not believe how it poured out of her in one long narrative. She spoke so fast, I hardly had a chance to ask her a question. She was dying to share it.”
from the washington post story.


Jackie (badly cut up and bruised): I was just brutally gang raped by seven fraternity pledges for hours. Do you think I should go to the police?
Jackie’s friends: No! Don’t do that!
Jackie: Why not?
Jackie’s friends: If you do that, we won’t get invited back!


1) There aren’t fall pledges for fraternities at UVA, Phi Kappa Psi included--so it is unlikely this was an initiation ritual

2) The 9 men allegedly in that room either committing rape or watching would have collectively represented roughly 20% of Phi Kappa Psi’s total membership- a pretty huge number to conveniently disappear from a party for 3 hours

3) Email records and IFC party records show no evidence that there was ANY event-- party or date function--at Phi Kappa Psi on the night in question.

4) Parties (and particularly date functions) at UVA don’t go on till after 3 AM--they rarely make it past 1:30 or 2. There’s no way that the event was still in full swing at that time. Having lived less than 200 yards away from Phi Psi, I can attest to this personally


So, in the pitch blackness, she knows it’s 9 guys. Seven of whom rape her, and 2 of whom watch. In the pitch blackness. How could they see anything?   And she says she took a 'side staircase' to get out of the building without being seen, but there is no side staircase at Phi Psi.  Do details like that matter?  What about the fact that she changed her story from 9 guys to 7, then again to 5, and from vaginal to oral sex?  Does she remember anything at all that is remotely accurate? 


“Study after study after study has shown that campus sexual assault is FAR MORE PREVALENT than most everyone – journalists included – previously believed.”

YOU’RE LYING, of course.

Who knows why, really. You can’t cite a single credible study, because none exist. Rape and sexual assault have been in strong decline since 1992 both on and off campus. BusinessInsider reported that on over half of the “25 Most Dangerous Campuses” in America ZERO rapes are reported in any given year.


To anyone other than an hysteric or opportunist, that’s good news. It’s great news.
To women's rape activists, it's infuriating.


Bill Dalasio|12.1.14 @ 12:32PM|#

But, again, you don't have to only assume she would act completely irrationally. You have to assume her friends, all of the classmates, the faculty, her own freaking mother - everybody - acted entirely irrationally in the frat's favor.

At that point, yes, it starts to look a lot more like alien abduction or "I saw a ghost".


The Duke Lacrosse case is a good analogy. But this is even worse. In the Duke case we at least had a real accuser who came forward to the police. Here we don't even have that.


Andrew S.|12.1.14 @ 10:06AM|#

I've been waiting for several years for a reasonable explanation as to why schools should have anything to do with rape accusations other than to contact the local police department for investigation. Still haven't heard one.

Scruffy Nerfherder|12.1.14 @ 10:09AM|#

You sound old, white, and patriarchical

CatoTheElder|12.1.14 @ 12:29PM|#

and male and heteronormative.

buybuydandavis|12.1.14 @ 5:29PM|#

And above all, PRIVILEGED!

Radioactive|12.2.14 @ 8:17AM|#

not to mention gluten free, fair trade and non-GMO



Oh, wow.  I'd missed this in the Washington Post story:  "Rachel Soltis, a suitemate of Jackie...is also quoted this way: “The university ignores the problem to make itself look better. They should have done something in Jackie’s case. Me and several other people know exactly who did this to her. But they want to protect even the people who are doing these horrible things.”

"Me and several other people know"  That makes this so much simpler.  Rachel Soltis et al merely have to testify, to be subpoenaed if necessary, and the 'facts' can come out.  Verifiable assertions, anyway, since they "know who did these horrible things."  

Rachael Soltis, where are you now???

Erdely’s editor at Rolling Stone, Sean Woods, told the Post, “We did not talk to them. We could not reach them,” but, he said, “we verified their existence.” Woods told several outlets that the factchecking had been thorough and told the Post,  “I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were.”

Sean Woods, where are you now??? 




Here's Slate's Amanda Marcotte after the facts came out:


"Asked why UVA doesn't publish all its data, President Sullivan explains that it might not be in keeping with "best practices" and thus may inadvertently discourage reporting. Jackie got a different explanation when she'd eventually asked Dean Eramo the same question. She says Eramo answered wryly, "Because nobody wants to send their daughter to the rape school.""

"What became clear from talking to Jackie’s supporters at UVA is that the community of victim advocates operates by a very specific code. “The first thing as a friend we must say is, ‘I believe you and I am here to listen,’ ” says Brian Head, president of UVA’s all-male sexual assault peer education group One in Four. Head and others believe that questioning a victim is a form of betrayal, because it will make her feel judged and all the more reluctant to ever speak about what happened. None of the people we spoke to had asked Jackie who the men were, and in fact none of them had any idea. They did not press her on any details about the incident."

If you really want to get depressed about this farrago, note how the grrl-power feminists at Jezebel http://jezebel.com/is-the-uva-.....1665233387 completely swallow the idea that three "friends" of the claimant, encountering her on the spot covered with blood and other evidence that would assure them her story was true, would tell her not to go to the police or even a hospital for fear that their association with her might prevent them from being invited back and gang-raped in their turn.


"A bruise still mottling her face, Jackie sat in Eramo's office in May 2014 and told her about the two others."

that is a heckuva facial bruise that lasts 7+ months.

(Not to mention that Jackie's friends said she showed no bruises or marks whatever the night of the supposed 'attack'.)


There was allegedly a gang rape used as an initiation into a fraternity. In other words, it was a premeditated gang rape in which some of the co-conspirators agreed to commit a major felony with people they just met less than one month earlier. One of the people mentioned in the story was explicitly said to be a freshman and the alleged rape was in September!  (And pledging doesn't happen until spring, but that's another matter.)


Cytotoxic|12.1.14 @ 1:26PM|#

Why would the guys laugh when the rapist punches her if it's pitch black? How would they see it?

Bryan C|12.1.14 @ 2:00PM|#

They were all wearing night-vision goggles. Did I forget to mention the night-vision goggles?



Mr. Jefferson, America's Founder and anointed Prophet, identified Rome as "the real Anti-Christ." Rabbis conclude Amalek gave us Hitler and committed the Holocaust. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen proves "two popes and the Roman Catholic Church are morally, legally, and ethically culpable of the Holocaust." Ergo: Amalek is the Anti-Christ; and Hitler's banker's homosexual, draft-dodging grandson committed 9-11 after being cheated into the White House by the Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court.



Twitter Activists Can’t Accept Rolling Stone Rape Retraction
5:56 PM 12/05/2014
Blake Neff

After several weeks of growing criticism of a story alleging that seven members of a University of Virginia fraternity gang raped a student, Rolling Stone has issued a partial retraction, admitting it “misplaced” trust in the student’s allegations.

Many Twitter users aren’t giving up the ghost, however. Numerous users took to the digital airwaves to say that, even if the original publication no longer believed its source, they still did.

    It’s cute that it hasn’t occurred to any journalists that an alleged rapist might have also lied to his victim. #IStandWithJackie

    — Sarah M (@sazza_jay) December 5, 2014

    @RollingStone backs up from the victim b/c the alleged rapist says he didn’t rape her. and in other news the sky is blue. #IStandWithJackie

    — ?klc (@kasie19RU) December 5, 2014

Several suggested that the real reason for the story’s retraction was influence from wealthy or influential alumni of the school or fraternity.

    Interesting how @RollingStone and @washingtonpost are backpeddling over #UVA. Powerful alumni can be brutal. Doesn’t make the story false. — Jessica Hannan (@jessicahannan81) December 5, 2014

    I smell frat boy lawyers that #RollingStone had to walk back printed assertions without asking them. #UVA — Stacie Rose (@igotviews) December 5, 2014

    If @RollingStone in any way caved to pressure from #UVA, now would be a good time to release/leak that information… #rollingstone

    — Sean C. Davis (@seandelakaza) December 5, 2014

A few even accused Rolling Stone of joining up with the sinister forces of “rape culture.”

    @RollingStone joins the multiple cultural “institutions” that support #rapeculture. #IStandWithJackie http://t.co/QPRoPTHYCD — Lyndsay Kirkham (@HisFeministMama) December 5, 2014

    “Discrepancies” is all it takes to convince most of the world Jackie is a liar.
Welcome to the rape culture.

    — Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) December 5, 2014


Some have tried to move on quickly, suggesting that, true or not, the horrifying accusations against the fraternity were less important than the discussion they provoked.

    The energy spent on being skeptical of the #UVA article, should really be used to prevent rape on campuses in the future. Bc it is real. — sandra sánchez (@sandrasanchez) December 5, 2014

    You know what, #UVA frats? If your statement isn’t “We stand with rape survivors,” keep your mouths shut. — Esta Jarrett (@estamj) December 5, 2014

    Whether or not there were discrepancies in her story, it’s important to bring awareness to the horrors of rape and gang rape on campus. #uva — spaceboy1993 (@MeganSearl) December 5, 2014



"To what end are we scrutinizing?"

In her search for a college to highlight a rape-culture, Ms. Erdely left Philadelphia, which actually has the two most dangerous colleges in the US (#1 Penn and #2 Temple on Elite Daily's list), took a convenient train ride south to a school that "felt right"..."like most colleges across America, genteel University of Virginia has no radical feminist culture seeking to upend the patriarchy."


To say the least, it's disappointing to read the Post contending that there are "doubts now clouding the gang-rape allegation."   No, that was weeks ago.   We still have to contend with innumerable voices (some of which clearly have President Sullivan's ear) claiming that pushing their agenda is far more important than one girl who "got some of the details wrong." 

You could be excused for thinking that last month, perhaps.  But now it's amply clear that the Rolling Stone hit piece and its source were nothing more than a pack of lies, designed expressly to trash the reputation of the University of Virginia and its fraternities.   Jackie and Erdeley have gone into hiding rather than make up any more stories.  One imagines they're having their forces search frantically for a Charlottesville fraternity--a house even--with a side staircase they can pin their sick fantasies on now.  They clearly couldn't care less whose lives they ruin, and since Rolling Stone's editors have now been caught in lies too (remember they insisted that they knew for a fact that "Drew" existed and they tried to contact him) they fall into the same category.

In affairs like this, there are truly no winners.  That does not mean that we continue to call the perpetrators "victims".   And it certainly does not mean there are no losers.  One of America's finest universities has had its name dragged through the mud--internationally--just as prospective students are deciding where to apply.  From the looks of it, the malefactors here will suffer no punishment.  Worse, they remain heroes to a significant fraction of observers.




Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. said that "one in five of every one of those young women who is dropped off for that first day of school, before they finish school, will be assaulted in her college years." He got that statistic from a 2007 study conducted for the Department of Justice, which found that nearly 20 percent of women reported experiencing a completed or attempted sexual assault since entering college.

That study, "probably the best we have", is flawed. It was based on undergraduates at just two unnamed large public universities, and it had a response rate of only 42 percent.


“It’s really upsetting as usual to see the media blaming a survivor,”


At Indiewire, Melissa Silverstein said "There are a few fundamental beliefs that I hold, and one of them is that I believe women."

No matter what Jackie said, we should believe rape claims

12/6/2014 11:56 AM EST [Edited]
The URL of this piece is: no-matter-what-jackie-said-we-should-automatically-believe-rape-claims/
While the title says "generally believe". Looks like someone has done some editing...


Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s “overarching point,” to use her words, was the prevalence of rape culture at the University of Virginia and the university’s alleged indifference to it, as exemplified by the way it allegedly mishandled Jackie’s case.


From Emily Yoffe’s article in Slate:

“The higher education insurance group United Educators did a study of the 262 insurance claims it paid to students between 2006 and 2010 because of campus sexual assault, at a cost to the group of $36 million. The vast majority of the payouts, 72 percent, went to the accused—young men who protested their treatment by universities.”


12/8/2014 9:32 pm

Female UVA Grad 86,

“I’ve been trying to figure out how I attended this school, and managed to never get raped or assaulted”

The answer is that you WERE raped or assaulted, you just never realized it.

The campus rape/activists/researchers have struggled with this problem for decades. When you ask women if they’ve been raped or sexually assaulted, only a tiny number of them say that they were. So the trick used by people like Christopher Krebs is to NOT ask them if they were sexually assaulted. Instead you ask them if any guy has ever gotten “handsey” with them. You ask them if, while you were dancing with a guy, has he ever slid his hand down from your waist to your butt without asking permission.

A much larger percentage of women will answer “yes” to this. The researcher/activist then marks that down in his spreadsheet as one more “sexual assault”. It doesn’t matter if the women in question regarded it as sexual assault or not.

And he then asks her if she had any alcohol at the party where this guy touched her. If she did, then she goes down as “sexually assaulted while incapacitated”.

This sounds too incredible to be true. But it’s all right there in the Campus Sexual Assault report, along with many other travesties of the letter and the spirit of genuine scientific research.


Mike Conrad
December 17, 2014 - 5:31 am | Permalink

Also worth considering is the fact that the big story at UVA this fall had been the brutal rape-murder of Hannah Graham by (apparent serial killer) Jesse Matthew. While stories like it are normally kept local thanks to determined mass media discipline, this one briefly became well-publicized, with even the NYT spinning it thus: “Virginia Cases Show Vulnerability of Women on Campus”.

Never mind FBI statistics showing conclusively that campus rape is rare–considerably rarer than off-campus rape–and that sexual assaults in general have been declining for two decades.

Actual criminals like Jesse Matthew are the very opposite of what people like Sabrina Rubin want us to see, so they set about concocting the very opposite, by wholesale fabrication if necessary. Rich, white, southern fraternity boys? Catnip to the likes of her; nothing so juicy had come along since the Duke Lacrosse hoax. This is the chief reason why a preposterous, Grade-B Lifetime Movie yarn like Jackie Coakley’s was just what the doctor ordered, and hence why it was never vetted.

It’s weird to see people saying that Rubin was a respected journalist. Quite the contrary, this grade-school morality play was par for the course with her, and if she had any brains or even media savvy she’d have toned down its more ludicrous aspects just for the sake of credibility. But some people will get carried away with their ‘narratives’…


 Kyle McKenna
12/2/2014 8:07 pm

The people behind this particular ‘story’ and its publicity aren’t really concerned with its accuracy or even its credibility. Its function as a political cudgel is what matters. As its defenders in this forum have shown, we’re rapidly approaching the point (if we’re not there already) where the mere accusation of sexual assault equals conviction. Hard to imagine how that might ever be misused, isn’t it?

People believe what they want to believe, helped liberally by mass-media propaganda, of which this RS cover story is a sterling example. Now all they have to do is come up with some actual people to flesh out their fantasy. But never mind, the damage is done, and the unravelling of those pesky ‘details’ will take place on the back pages, long after the minds of the masses have moved on to greener pastures.


 Joseph McDade
12/2/2014 8:09 pm

I thought the story rang a bell –University of Virginia, gang rape. Right. Much of the accusations are lifted from Scott Turow’s novel “Limitations,” in which an appellate judge (named, if you can believe it, George Mason), decides on a statute-of-limitations case involving a gang rape in Kindle (Cook, of course) County, and while doing so has painful memories of a gang rape he witnessed and participated in while a law student at UVa.

 Kyle McKenna
12/2/2014 8:26 pm

Oh, wow. I’d missed this in the Washington Post story: “Rachel Soltis, a suitemate of Jackie…is also quoted this way: “The university ignores the problem to make itself look better. They should have done something in Jackie’s case. Me and several other people know exactly who did this to her. But they want to protect even the people who are doing these horrible things.”

“Me and several other people know” That makes this so much simpler. Rachel Soltis et al merely have to testify, to be subpoenaed if necessary, and the ‘facts’ can come out. Verifiable assertions, anyway, since they “know who did these horrible things.”


  Read Eugene Volokh's piece here in the WP ("Libel law and the Rolling Stone / UVA alleged gang rape story") to see why no actions may ever be filed. For one thing, it brings more unwelcome attention to the spurious charges. But there are other real (albeit legalistic) reasons why it could be difficult and even counterproductive to bring a claim against RS (though I certainly think RS should pay, not least because it's anything but genuinely contrite)..
Woe unto UVA and Phi Psi... they have been deliberately and effectively slimed, and it won't be easy to undo the damage.


12/6/2014 7:17 PM EST
What happened to you is terrible and yes, criminal. It's pretty sick to think that someone falsely accused of rape might just lose a few facebook friends or have a rough time, as this dimwitted author suggests. And yes, level-headed people understand how a false accusation can destroy someone's life. I had a friend in college who lived in my (all-girls) dorm. She had gotten drunk at a sorority party and slept with a guy she barely knew. She was laughing about how she couldn't believe she slept with this not-so-cute guy from some not-so-cool-frat-house. Soon, some of her other friends starting saying that since she had been drinking, the guy raped her. At first she denied this, saying she had thought he was sweet and a little nerdy and they were both drunk and she knew what she was doing. But her friends kept at it, telling her she had been raped, even though she "thought" she had consented . After about 15 minutes of constantly telling her she'd been raped, this girl agreed to go to the university counselor the next morning and report the "rape." I couldn't believe it. I told her, "Think about what you're going to do. You're about to screw over some guy because you regret sleeping with him? A few minutes ago you were laughing about it, telling us how sweet he was. Now you're ready to report him for rape and ruin his life? That's pretty sh*tty." Thankfully she reconsidered and agreed with me, because you're right. There would have been nothing that boy could have done to refute her claims.



Also worth considering is the fact that the big story at UVA this fall had been the brutal rape-murder of Hannah Graham by (apparent serial killer) Jesse Matthew.  While stories like it are normally kept local thanks to determined mass media discipline, this one briefly became well-publicized, with even the NYT spinning it thus: "Virginia Cases Show Vulnerability of Women on Campus". 

Never mind FBI statistics showing conclusively that campus rape is rare--considerably rarer than off-campus rape--and that sexual assaults in general have been declining for two decades. 

Actual criminals like Jesse Matthew are the very opposite of what people like Sabrina Rubin want us to see, so they set about concocting the very opposite, by wholesale fabrication if necessary.  Rich, white, southern fraternity boys?  Catnip to the likes of her; nothing so juicy had come along since the Duke Lacrosse hoax.  This is the chief reason why a preposterous, Grade-B Lifetime Movie yarn like Jackie Coakley's was just what the doctor ordered, and hence why it was never vetted. 

It's weird to see people saying that Rubin was a respected journalist. Quite the contrary, this grade-school morality play was par for the course with her, and if she had any brains or even media savvy she'd have toned down its more ludicrous aspects just for the sake of credibility.  But some people will get carried away with their 'narratives'...



6:07 PM EST
Erdely describes the students of UVA as "overwhelmingly blond" in the Rolling Stone article. More quotes: "The decorum of Southern aristocracy" "genteel University of Virginia" "Prestige is at the core of UVA's identity." "Wealthy parents are the norm." "old-money privilege"

Who pays?

12/19/2014 7:09 PM EST
A lot of people got damaged from Rolling Stone's pitiful attempt at journalism and Jackie's heinous lies. For one, her friends were cast as complete sociopaths who cared more about their social standing than the well being of their friend. This turn out to be completely untrue. The fraternity that Jackie accused of having gang rape as an initiation was severely damaged. Their property was damaged from vandals. Their reputation of their current and past members were damaged because the allegation that Jackie made was that everyone who is a member of that fraternity had to participate in committing heinous felonies to be a member. Which also turned out to be untrue. A lot of people were damaged. It is imperative that the victims of Jackie's lies and Rolling Stone's hire lawyers to make them pay for the damages that they have caused. The only way that people like Jackie and Rolling Stones learn that their behavior is unacceptable is if society makes them pay a heavy price for their conduct.


11/12/2014 1:37 AM EST

One of the biggest problems is this idiotic rule they have concocted, just in sexual assault cases, that a person, actually a woman, is not responsible for her actions if she is drunk, even if she became drunk willingly. 
This is about the only area of law in which this is true. The law has always held that being drunk does not absolve a person for responsibility for his or her actions. If a woman gets really drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone, she's not excused because she was drunk -- in fact, she's more culpable. If she gets drunk and for fun gets a gun and starts wildly firing it around and shoots someone, she's responsible.
But if she gets hammered and says yes to sex, the man is responsible for knowing how drunk she is and is a rapist if he has sex with her. Absurd. If you get drunk, and you say yes, you're responsible and you've not been raped.
And by the way, if a guy gets really drunk and rapes a woman, he doesn't get to use his being drunk as a defense.T
this also shows the hypocrisy of the wacko crowd pushing these rules. In California, they just passed one of these stupid consent rules for colleges. Its proponents call it the "yes means yes" law, but as just shown, that is a lie -- even if a woman says yes, she can still claim rape by saying she was too drunk to consent. We now have the rule that "no means no" and "yes might mean no" too.


11/11/2014 11:08 PM EST
I am bothered by the idea that women who are drunk are legally no longer able to consent to sex. One reason is that some women get drunk because they want to have sex. The power of social morays make it difficult for some women to initiate or even agree to have sex unless alcohol lowers their inhibitions. Thus the order of causality is, "I want to have sex, I need to get drunk." I don't see many women admitting this, but I think it is true. A second reason I don't like it, is the issue of the man's inebriation. Why is he legally responsible to discern a drunk women's false yes, when he is drunk? That is, a drunk women is incapable of legally, responsibly saying yes I want sex, but a drunk man must be able to a) discern exactly how drunk the women is, and b) understand that yes now means no. So legally a drunk women is incapable of understanding her own desires, but a drunk man is responsible to figure out what the police use breathalyzers to determine? Finally, if both are drunk, then whoever is determined to have initiated sex is the rapist? It makes no sense to me.


Something similar happened to a classmate of mine.  He was a young man of unusual self-possession.  After a night out with a woman he'd been dating, he drove her back to her dormitory and let her out, when she'd clearly been expecting to go back to his place.  "Why did you drive me here?" she demanded angrily.  "Well," he responded, "You've had more than one drink tonight and I don't want to be held responsible for anything we might or might not do." (He is a non-drinker.)  Apparently she flew off the handle and screamed at him, but he held his ground, insisting that she go inside her dorm.  So what happened?  She charged him with sexual assault because she was mad that they *didn't* have sex.  Nearly ruined his life, too, and it took years for him to recover even though she stopped co-operating with police after just a few days.  Thank God for text messages since he had been able to produce texts between them which disproved her claims. 

Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s OTHER Rape Story

Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s OTHER OTHER Rape Story

What say you?

comments powered by Disqus

Web Hosting